Employees convicted for attempting to cheat a firm by presenting a chalan for lime stone never delivered. The Court held that getting the verifier's initials on the chalan was an act towards commission of cheating beyond preparation under s. 511 IPC, upheld the conviction and noted the sentence had already been suffered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
737
A SUDHIR KUMAR MUKHERJEE AND SHAM LAL SHAW
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
September 24, 1973
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.]
B
Indian Pe11al Code (Act 4~ of 1860), s. 511-Scope of.
The first appellant was an employee in a firm and the second appellant was a supplier of lime stone to the firm. The procedure in respect of the supply was that the second appellant would bring four bags of lime stone every day to the first appellant and present a chalan to him. The first appellant would then send the chalan to P. W. 2 who would initial it and send it back to the first appellant. There11pon, the first appellant would put a seal and his signature on it and the second appellant would present it to the concerned department and receive payc ment for the supply made. On complaints that the first appellant was in the habit of signing the chalan without actually receiving the goods, P.W. 2 was asked to make a physical verification. On the day the verification was made, the first appellant, as usual sent the chalan to P.W. 2. After initialling it, P.W. 2 verified the stock and not finding the four bags of lime stone questioned' the two appellants. They were then prosecuted and were convicted for offences under s. 120B read with s. 420 and s. 511 read with s. 420, J.P.C.
On the question whether there was only a preparation and not an attempt to D cheat,
HEW: Under s. 511, I.P.C., a rerson commits the offence of "attempt to commit a particular offence" when (1) he intends to con1mit that particular offence and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention of.commit· ting the offence, does an act towards ds commission : such an act need not be tho penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act dur· ing the course of committing that offence. The provisions of the section differ from English law in that it is not necessary for the offence under s. 511 that the E transaction commenced must end in the crime, or offencC, if not interruoted.
[740 E-Gl
When the chalan is sent by the first appellant for initials of P.W. 2 the first appellant takes upon himself the responsibility of assuring P.W. 2 that the lime stone had been received. In the present case, the chalan had been prepared and the initials of P.W. 2 obtained. This is the most important and crucial step towards cheating though it is not the penultimate step. Towards this end both the accused had co-operated. Therefore, the accused did not stop at the stage of F preparation but had reached the stage of attempt.
[739 B-C, D-E; 740 G-H; 741 A-Bl
Abhaya11a11d Mislira v. State of Bihar, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 241, followed.
[No opinion was expressed on the question of conspiracy as there had been only a single instance.] [739A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. G 60-61 of 1970.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 15, 1969 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 423 and 390 of 1960 respectively.
R. L. Kohli and S. K. Gambhir, for the appellant (in both the H appeals).
P. K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent (in both the appeals) .
[ J..97 4 J 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME C:Jl)RT REPOl!.T.S
738
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGil:isWAMI, J. 'fhe two appellants were tried before the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta for offencs under s. l 20B read with s.420 and s.511 read with s.420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Presidency Magistrate held them guilty of both the offences and imposed a sentence of 1 year's imprisonment ad a fine of Rs. 200 on each of the accused on the first charge and considered that no separate sentence was necessary in respect of the second, an~ th~ a~peals filed by them in the High-COurt of Calcutta were summarily d1snnssed. The .facts giving rise to these afpeals are as follows :
Appellant Sudhii: Kumar Mukherjee W3:S an employee in charge of soda lime department of M/s Gluconate Lmuted, Calcutta. and appellant Sham Lal . Shaw was the supplier of lime stone to the said firm. It appears that four bags of liine stone were needed every day· The pro· cedure in respect of the supply was that Shaw used to· bnng the bags to Sudhir and present a chalan to him. Thereupon Sudhir would send the chalan to P.W. 2, Atdendu Sekhar Goswami, who used to initia1 it and send back to Slldhir. Thereupon Sudhir would put a seal on it as also his signature, and. Shaw would present that chalan to the concerned department and receive payment for the supply made. It appears that the Managing Director of the company, Amarendra Nath Haldar, P.W.l had he3Id certain complaints that Sudhir was in the habit of signing the chalan without actually receiving the goods. He therefore asked PW 2 to make a physical verification of the lime stone to be received on 4-3-1968. On that day Sudhir sent the chalan to PW 2 for his signature through PW 3. PW 2 initialled it and after informing PW 1 about his having initialled the chalan went down to verify the stock. As the four bags of lime stone were not there he asked Sudhir and he stated that the quantity received had been spent. PW 1 sent for Sudhir and be first told him that the lime stone receiV·· ed bad been used up and :later changed his statement and said that he might have signed the chalan through mistake. Shaw was then sent for by PW 1. When questioned he denied having received any cbalan or having made any supply of lime stone on that day. But when he was told that h~ v:o.u!d be sent to the police, he produced the chalan which bore PW 2 s m1bals. It should also be mentioned that PW 5 was also asked by PW 1 to make a physical verification and to him Sudhir denied having any knowledge of the matter and Sham Lal Shaw told him that he bad not supplied any goods on that day. It is on these facts thnt the prosecution was instituted and the conviction and sentence imPOSed as mentioned earlier. -
n
c
D
E
F
G
Sudhir's. contention was that he had been falsely implicated as he was the Assistant Secretary of the Jabour union. Shaw contended that about Rs. 3,000/- was due to him for the supply of lime stone that he had made a demand for it, that PW 1 asked him to reduce the rate that ~n 4-3-1968 Sudhir asked him to take back the goods as it was not requrred and be did so.
There is no oubt tat t~e facts as narrated earlier have been amply proved by the ev1d.ence m this case. The quest.ion therefore is whether there was a consprracy and whether there was an attempt at cbeatln!J
H
• I
s. K. MUKHERJEE & S. L. SHAW V. WEST BENGAL 7 39
(A/agi;iswami, J)
"Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code . . . . or to cause such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any 'act towards the commission of F the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished."
The law on this point was elaborately discussed with reference to all the decided cases by this Court in its decision in Abhavanand Mish1a v. State of Bihar(1 ). We will confine ourselves to stating a few relc· vant extracts therefrom. It was pointed out in that decision that : G "The moment a person takes some step to deceive the
"The moment a person takes some step to deceive the person sought to be cheated, he has embarked on a course of conduct wnich is nothillg less than an attempt to commit the offence as contemplated by s. 511. He does the act with the intention to commit the offence and the act is a step towards the commission of the offence."
(l) [19621 (2) S. C. R. 241 (2) (1872) 4 N.W. P. 46'
[ 1974 j 1 S.C.R.
SUPRhME COURT REPORTS
740
to the commission of the offence. The decision In the mutter of the petition of R. MacCrea(') was also referred to. The purport of that decision was explained to be that s. 511 was not meant to cover only the penultimate act towards the completion of an offence; acts precedent, if those acts are done in the course of the attempt to commit the offence, and were done with the intent to commit it and done towards its commission were also covered. In that decision Knox, J. said :
"Again, the httempt once begun and a criminal act done in pursuance of it towards the commission of the act artemp· ted, does not cease to be a criminal attempt, in my opinion, because the person committing the offence does or may repent before the attempt is completed."
This Court cited with approval the statement of Blair, J. "It seems to me that that section (s.511) uses the word 'attempt' in a very large sense; it seems to imply that such an attempt may be made up of a series of acts, and that any one of those acts done towards the commission of the offence, that is, conducive to its commission, is itself punishable, and though the act does not use the words, it can mean nothing but punishable as an attempt. It does not say that the last act which would form the final part of an attempt in the larger s.ense is the only act punishable under the section. It says expressly that whosoever in such attempt, obviously using the word in the larger sense, does any act, etc., shall be punishable. The terni 'any act' excludes the notion that the final act short of actual commission is alone punishable."
This Court also referred to certain other decisions and pointed out that any different view expressed has been due to an omission to notice the fact that the provisions of s. 511 differ from the English Law with respect to 'attempt to commit an offence', and that it is not necessary for the offence under s. 511, Indian Penal Code, that the transaction commenced must end in the crime or offence, if not interrupted. This Court finally summarised its views about the construction of s. 511 thus: "A person commits the offence of 'attempt to commit a particular offence' when (i) he intends to. commit that particular offence, and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offen°", does an act towards its commission : such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence."
With respect we concur in this view. In the present case the chalan has been prepared and the initials _of P.W. 2 obtained· That js most important and crucial step towarils cbi:ating. Towards this eqd both the accused have cooperated. 'Thereafter it only remained for the appellant Sudhir to llffilt the stamp and put bis ture. Accused ShJw llQllld then have presented it to the company's offiee and received pat. This (I) T. L. R. IS All. 173.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
7 4 l
S. K. MUKHERJEE & S. L. SHAW V. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, J)
is a definite step towards the commission of the offence of cheating though it is not the penultimate step. We hold that the acts of the accused did not stop at the stage of preparation but had reached the stage of attempt. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellants under s. 511 read with s. 420 l.P.C. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
B It is however stated that the appellants ha.ve already suffered the sentence' imposed' by the Presidency Magistrate and it is not necessary to say or do anything fUrther about it.
V.P.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether obtaining initials on a chalan for undelivered goods amounted to an attempt to cheat under s. 511 read with s. 420 IPC or merely preparation.
Whether a conspiracy under s. 120B was made out on a single instance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abhayanand Mishra v. State of BiharFollowed¶15
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 241 · Who else cites this
The Queen v. Ramsarun ChowbeyReferred
(1872) 4 N.W.P. 46
In the matter of the petition of R. MacCreaReferred
T.L.R. 18 All. 173
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee
Sham Lal Shaw
State of West Bengal
H. R. Khanna
A. Alagiriswami
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
